Appendix A — Appendix: Data Review and Uplift

Published

May 15, 2023

A.1 Introduction

Prior to publishing analysis and interpretation of water quality data, we will ensure that all data that meets QA/QC standards outlined in the current project Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and is accessible in the appropriate repository.

Water quality data from this project is ultimately destined for the Environmental Protection Agency’s Water Quality Exchange (EPA WQX). The process of transferring these data to the higher-level EPA repository is referred to as data “uplift.”

The Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for this project describes data management details and responsible parties for each step of the data pipeline from observation to repository. The 2021 data preparation and review process is published here as an appendix as an example of the process applied annually to each year’s data.

A.1.1 2021 Water Quality Data

In this appendix we will collate 2021 laboratory data from several sources into a single spreadsheet document with a consistent format. The desired end format is a spreadsheet template provided by the EPA Water Quality Exchange. These template files are available to download from the EPA at https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/water-quality-exchange-web-template-files.

Once the data is collated, it will be evaluated according to a Quality Assurance Checklist (template example provided by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Soldotna office). Field observations that do not meet the quality assurance standards described in the evaluation checklist will be flagged and will not be uplifted to the EPA WQX.

Data that has been uplifted to the EPA WQX is evaluated biannually by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) in their Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report1. The integrated report evaluates available water quality data from the previous five years against Alaska water quality standards and regulations (ADEC 2020).

A.1.1.1 2021 Water Quality Data AQWMS Formatting

The code scripts below assemble water quality data from the three analytical laboratories that partnered with Kenai Watershed Forum for this project in 2021:

  • SGS Laboratories (Anchorage, AK)

  • Soldotna Wastewater Treatment Plant (Soldotna, AK)

  • Taurianen Engineering and Testing (Soldotna, AK)



A.1.1.1.1 2021 Metals/Nutrients Lab Results (SGS Labs)

*Note: the chain of custody documents for SGS Laboratories are integrated into the above downloadable PDF files.



A.1.1.1.2 2021 Fecal Coliform Lab Results (Soldotna Wastewater Treatment Plant (SWWTP)/Taurianen Engineering)


A.1.1.1.3 2021 Total Suspended Solids Lab Results (Soldotna Wastewater Treatment Plant (SWWTP))



A.1.2 2021 Provisional Results, Prior to Data Review

Results last updated 2023-05-15

The above data sources have been collated in to a single .csv file (available for download) into a format compatible with the EPA Water Quality Exchange. These data have not yet been evaluated against QA/QC standards following guidance in the current project Quality Assurance Project Plan.



A.1.3 2021 Data QA/QC Evaluation

Prior to uplift to the EPA WQX, all water quality data must be checked against a series of standard questions in order to evaluate how quality assurance / quality check (QA/QC) requirements are met. The draft Data Evaluation Checklist Template (available for download below) outlines these questions:

A.1.3.1 Pre-Database


A.1.3.1.1 Overall Project Success

1.) Were the appropriate analytical methods used for all parameters?

Yes. Analytical methods from the approved 2020 QAPP were employed.


2.) Were there any deviations from the sampling plan?

All sites were visited as planned on 5/11/2021 and 7/27/2021. Most intrinsic water quality parameters measured with instruments (pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, turbidity) were not measured.

3.) Were field duplicates, blanks, and/or other QC samples collected as planned?

`summarise()` has grouped output by 'analysis', 'expected_results',
'activity_start_date'. You can override using the `.groups` argument.


To see a table comparing planned vs actual results for 2021, view the excel file linked above.

From the above table we can see that there are deviations between planned and actual results available. These reasons for the deviations are known and are attributable to two causes:

Cause 1: The Spring 2021 Chain of Custody (COC) from KWF to SGS was completed erroneously. The COC specified for 200.8 analyses to be complete for all sites (when they should have stopped upstream of Morgan’s Landing RM31), and it also specified for 200.7 analyses to stop upstream of Morgan’s Landing (when they should have been performed for all sites in the project).

As a result, for Spring 2021 total metals data will be unavailable for sites upstream of the Morgan’s Landing RM31 site.

Cause 2: For Summer 2021, the SGS performed the 200.8 analyses for all 27 analytes available for the method; instead of just the smaller subset of analytes as requested. (E.g., KWF received extra data for free. In this case., there are no consequences of deviating from the planned analyses).


4.) Do the laboratory reports provide results for all sites and parameters?

The laboratory reports provide results for all sites, and for all parameters, with the exceptions outlined above in question #3.


5.) Is a copy of the Chain of Custody included with the laboratory reports?

We worked with three separate laboratories in 2021:

  • SGS Laboratories, Anchorage, AK

    • Chain of Custody documents are included within the PDF laboratory reports linked above earlier in this appendix.
  • Soldotna Wastewater Treatment Plant, Soldotna, AK

    • Chain of Custody documents are on file with Kenai Watershed Forum for fecal coliform and total suspended solids for 5/11/2021, and for total suspended solids on 7/27/2021.
  • Tauriainen Engineering & Testing, Soldotna, AK

    • An individual document for each sample reports the time and date of delivery and analysis for each sample. These documents are included with the PDF laboratory reports linked above earlier in this appendix.


6.) Do the laboratory reports match the Chain of Custody and requested methods throughout?

The laboratory reports match the Chain of Custody and requested methods, with the one exception discussed in question #3. For summer 2021, the SGS performed the 200.8 analyses for all 27 analytes available for the method; instead of just the smaller subset of analytes as requested. (E.g., KWF received extra data for free. In this case., there are no consequences of deviating from the planned analyses).


7.) Are the number of samples on the laboratory reports the same as on the Chain of Custody?

The quantity of sample bottles sent to the laboratories matches the number of analyzed samples for samples collected and delivered on 5/11/2021 and 7/27/2021.


8.) Was all supporting info provided in the laboratory report, such as reporting limits for all analyses and definitions?

We worked with three separate laboratories in 2021:

  • SGS Laboratories, Anchorage, AK

    • SGS provided data as PDFs which included reporting limits, as well as in the form of an Electronic Data Deliverable where this information is also included in column format.
  • Soldotna Wastewater Treatment Plant (SWWTP), Soldotna, AK

    • SWWTP provided data in the form of .xls files. Reporting limits are described in this project’s current Quality Assurance Action Plan.
  • Tauriainen Engineering & Testing, Soldotna, AK

    • Tauriainen provided data in the form of PDF documents. Reporting limits are described in this project’s current Quality Assurance Action Plan.


9.) Are site names, dates, and times correct and as expected?

  • Yes, after post-season correction documented in this report. Notes: In 2021 Kenai Watershed Forum used pre-printed waterproof labels on all sample bottles, reducing opportunity for field and lab transcription errors. Remaining site name transcription errors from laboratories were corrected in post-season data review.


10.) Were there any issues with instrument calibration?

  • Instruments to measure intrinsic water quality parameters (sondes; to measure pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, turbidity) were not employed in 2021.

  • Teams did use hand-held probes to record water temperature on-site. Prior to field use, the hand-held probes were verified as measuring within the accuracy level define in the QAPP using an ice bath in the laboratory.


11.) Did the instruments perform as expected?

  • The hand-held water temperature probes performed as expected in 2021.


12.) Was instrument calibration performed according to the QAPP and instrument recommendations?

  • Water temperature is a parameter that is “verified” rather than calibrated. The hand-held water temperature probes were verified as measuring within the accuracy level define in the QAPP using an ice bath in the laboratory, according to instrument recommendations.


13.) Was instrument verification during the field season performed according to the QAPP and instrument recommendations?

  • The hand-held water temperature probes were verified as measuring within the accuracy level define in the QAPP using an ice bath in the laboratory, according to instrument recommendations.


14.) Were instrument calibration verification logs or records kept?

  • Yes. These records are held at Kenai Watershed Forum, 44129 Sterling Hwy, Soldotna, AK.


15.) Do the instrument data files site IDs, time stamps and file names match?

  • Instrument files were not employed in 2021. Measurements from hand held probes were recorded on waterproof paper field forms.


16.) Is any insitu field data rejected and why?

  • No insitu data is rejected from 5/11/2021 or 7/27/2021.


17.) Were preservation, hold time and temperature requirements met?

  • Yes. Summer and Spring 2021 holding time requirements were met for all samples. See downloadable files below. Laboratory result documents indicated no compromises of preservation and temperature requirements.


18.) Are dissolved metal quantities less than total metals quantities?

  • Dissolved metals results are not consistently less than total metals results, as would be anticipated (see link at Flowlink website)

  • In 2021, there are results available for both dissolved and total metals for three elements: Ca, Fe, and Mg; for sites at and downstream of RM 31.

  • Dissolved metals results are available for 7/27/2021 (summer) only, and not for 5/11/2021 (spring); see question #3 in this sequence.

  • Results:

    • Calcium: all available observations show dissolved metals > total metals

    • Iron: all available observations show dissolved metals < total metals

    • Magnesium: nearly all available observations show dissolved metals < total metals, with the exception of three sites, all near the Kenai River mouth


19.) Are the duplicate sample(s) RPD within range described in QAPP?

In 2021, duplicate samples were collected at two sites on both 5/11/2021 and 7/27/2021:

  • No Name Creek (Tributary, RM0)
  • Funny River (Tributary, RM30)

from DEC 2022 field report: “… a set of paired samples was evaluated for RPD only if:

a.) one or both of the samples were above the [LOQ)]; AND if b.) one or both of the samples were at least two times the [LOQ].”

Work in progress here as of 2023-05-15

value for "which" not specified, defaulting to c("rows", "cols")
New names:
Joining with `by = join_by(monitoring_location_id, activity_type)`
• `` -> `...3`
• `` -> `...4`
• `` -> `...5`
• `` -> `...6`



  1. https://dec.alaska.gov/water/water-quality/integrated-report/↩︎